Pakistan is not a nation, but a multi-national state

Pakistan is not a nation, but a multi-national state composed of four nations that were independent and sovereign in the past. Smothering the identity of a nation to needlessly produce an absurd monism is characteristic of imperialist impulses. There is a stigma attached to nationalism which 'nationalists' around the world have not been able to shake off. This stigma exists due to a deliberate confusion created by the anti-nationalist forces and vested interests that seek to discredit genuine nationalists. To clarify the position, it is necessary to draw a distinction between two types of nationalism. One type may be described as 'aggressive' nationalism, while the other type may be referred to as 'protective' nationalism.

The impetus for action and the nature of change brought about by these diametrically opposed ideologies is very different. Whereas aggressive nationalism is an ideology that readily lends itself to imperialist and fascist tendencies that seek to oppress and stifle, protective nationalism acts as a barrier against oppression and can be a fertile breeding ground for positive change, leading to freedom and liberty.
The brilliant Oxford Don and philosopher, Sir Isaiah Berlin, wrote, "The sense of belonging to a nation seems to me to be quite natural and not in itself to be condemned, or even criticized. But in its inflamed condition - my nation is better than yours, I know how the world should be shaped and you must yield because you do not, because you are inferior to me, because my nation is top and yours is far, far below mine and must offer itself as material to mine, which is the only nation entitled to create the best possible world - it is a form of pathological extremism which can lead, and has led to unimaginable horrors."
This bellicose and belligerent form of nationalism is aggressive nationalism and has thrown up the Hitlers, the Mussolinis and the colonial empires that history is riddled with. It is an extreme form of nation-worship that leads to suffering and subjugation and must be abhorred by any liberal who values the freedom of man.
What defines and indeed distinguishes protective nationalism from aggressive nationalism is the basic principle that whereas aggressive nationalism is a matter of ideology promoted by a militarily and materially advanced nation to hegemonize a less advanced and less powerful nation, protective nationalism is an attempt on the part of the less advanced nation to survive in the face of hegemonic designs of the aggressor who seeks to obliterate its national identity.
Protective nationalism is thrust upon nations by history and circumstances. It is the agonized throes of a nation as it struggles to resist the current in an effort to stay afloat. These natural instincts for self-preservation are erroneously referred to as nationalism whereas it is, in fact, no more than a desperate struggle for the political, economic, social, cultural and territorial survival of a nation under siege.
If the struggle is successful, the nationalists are hailed as revolutionaries and liberators. Statues and monuments are erected in their honour and boulevards are named after them. If the struggle fails, they are imprisoned and executed as traitors and terrorists. The process of recording history is highly subjective. The victor has his say while the voice of the vanquished is silenced.
Pakistan, too, has experienced protective nationalism in its relatively short history. The secession of East Pakistan and the consequent birth of Bangladesh was a direct consequence of Bengali protective nationalism. They were pushed into a corner and forced to fight for their national and cultural survival, which in their view was impossible within the framework of Pakistan.
Sindhi, Baloch and Pushtoon nationalism, too, has, at one point or another, been viewed as a threat to the state and treason cases have been filed against a number of nationalist political leaders. More recently, their brand of nationalism has been held responsible for impeding development with reference to Kalabagh Dam.
The sad and frustrating part of all this is that no attempt whatsoever is made to understand the protective nationalism that is fermenting in Sindh, Balochistan and the Frontier, and the causes and circumstances that gave birth to it and the fears that sustain it continue to elude the grasp of those who seek to crush it. Preconceived, prefabricated and highly inappropriate solutions are applied that further aggravate the situation rather than repair the harm already done.
Understanding requires more than a mere superficial knowledge of how things are. It implies an appreciation of why things are the way they are. Rather than understanding and addressing the motives, fears, hopes, ambitions and historical factors that generate ripples of nationalism, we prefer to gag all dissent and plaster over such ungainly, embarrassing and hard to deal with realities in order to give the appearance of a veneer of calm, no matter how unacceptable and distasteful it might be.
A good example of this is the way in which the federal government is insistently pushing ahead with the Kalabagh Dam project in the face of strong opposition in Sindh, Balochistan and the Frontier, even though the provincial legislatures of these three provinces have passed resolutions against this project.
Instead of trying to understand the apprehensions and causes of the objections to the dam and allaying these fears in a spirit of accommodation and trust, the government seems to have adopted a highly provocative three-pronged strategy. Firstly, an all out attempt is being made to discredit the opponents of the dam by labelling them as feudal vested interests. Secondly, the political parties and representatives of the people have been distanced and isolated and the task of resolving the conflict and forging a consensus has been placed upon the shoulders of the Civil Service and technocrats, who have no nexus with the public and are, thus, incapable of swaying public opinion.
The only way to resolve this deadlock is through a political dialogue between political leaders from all the four provinces, including nationalists, aided by technical experts and perhaps with the assistance of independent foreign experts to provide an impartial view. The President is right in believing that this issue has to be resolved soon, but the civil servants cannot resolve this issue and if any agreement reached by them is imposed upon the nation, there could be serious trouble.
Thirdly, the President has taken it upon himself to promote Kalabagh Dam at every forum instead of remaining impartial. This has only served to elevate the debate to a higher level and further antagonize the opponents of the dam. Sensitive national issues require finesse and a deft touch. They cannot be bulldozed or be stamped out under a heavy boot.
It has been my experience that those in power simply do not understand the problems of the three smaller provinces and continue to live in denial of their genuine and urgent needs. Their ignorance on matters of vital interest to the people of the three smaller provinces is astounding.
During a recent visit to Lahore, a classmate of mine from Atchison College whom I had not seen in over twenty-five years, and who now happens to be a power to be reckoned with in Punjabi politics, invited me for dinner with his family and some other mutual friends. The conversation inevitably steered itself to politics, and I was telling him about the mess in Sindh compared to which Punjab seemed like an island of tranquillity, development and stability.
After listening to me patiently, my friend's wife finally spoke. "The solution seems quite obvious to me," she said. "A Punjabi man should be appointed the chief minister of Sindh so that he may set things right for you."
For a moment I was not sure I had heard her properly or whether she was serious or merely jesting. She was not jesting. This was not a careless remark from some insignificant, illiterate person. It came from an educated, responsible and knowledgeable member of a highly respected and powerful family.
There followed a brief awkward silence. To break the tension, her husband joked, "Why don't we get someone from Singapore?" I went a step further. "Why don't we hand the whole country back to the British? They seemed to have done such a marvellous job here in the past!"
To be fair, I also had a rather pleasant meeting with an advisor to the Punjab Chief Minister who surprised me with his balanced approach and an understanding of the issues at hand. We need more people like him who realize that nationalists are not out to dismember the country but are merely protecting the vital interests of their regions. Alas, men of that ilk are few and far apart up north.
Pakistan is not a nation but a multi-national state, composed of four nations that have been independent and sovereign in the past. Each nation possesses, in the words of Johann Gottfried Herder, a distinct "centre of gravity". Multiple values and interests of each component nation, which are an essential, indeed objective, part of their identity, flowing inexorably from their past experiences, often produce a diversity of opinion and sometimes conflict.
This cultural and national diversity, whether it be political, social or economic in nature, need not be perceived as a threat to Pakistan. It can become our strength if we let it evolve and flourish. Variety and a difference of opinion unleash a dynamic process of creativity and progress, but the inescapable prerequisite for that is an atmosphere of mutual trust that can only be born of mutual respect. Protective nationalism surfaces in response to a threat. Eliminate the threat and nationalism loses its raison d'etre.
In Pakistan we have evolved a deep distrust of national diversity and cultures and we view competing interests as a threat to state interests. The nations constituting Pakistan have enough in common to coexist and cooperate to their mutual benefit with a healthy display of tolerance and accommodation, but problems arise when an attempt is made at an unnecessary artificial unification of cultural and national identities and interests to the extent of forging one all-encompassing identity at the expense of its component parts. This cannot be done and can lead to serious trauma, as it already has in our history.
Modern times demand a tolerant, pluralist approach. Smothering the identity and vital interests of a nation to needlessly produce an absurd and meaningless monism of national culture is characteristic of imperialist impulses and is a crime against nations. Dawn Magazine Sunday 25.1.2004